The "Why are you still single?" quiz, sorta

[chevalier]

I don’t see the difference, in both cases it is a just cause that happens to continue throughout the whole marriage.

As I said, can. 1095 sec. 3 is on the book and there’s no arguing there. If for a reason of psychic nature a person is unable to assume one of the essential duties of marriage, marriage is invalid. There is no such rule about physical illness except downright impotence, but there is a rule about intent and a rule about essential duties and essential goods of marriage.

Physical defects are not set in stone. A treatment that will restore health may be around the corner, some illnesses that are generally considered permanent will sometimes (albeit rarely) go away on their own. Likewise with mental illnesses.

Consent needs to persist when a defect of consent for a psychic reason is gone. If there’s a defect of consent at the moment of the wedding and the defect persists until such time as the other supposed spouse has withdrawn consent, then convalidation is prevented and the marriage stays null. This concerns the assumption of duties itself rather than directly the performance, but a person unable to perform is unable to promise to perform.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Canon Law items you quoted. To me it would seem that they require openness to life (i.e. practicing NFP when there are just reason to do so). A person who uses NFP because they discern mental illness to be a just reason to do so is open to life.

A person’s discerning mental illness as a just cause for NFP does not remove can. 1095 from the book. A person who intends forever to use NFP is not open to life. The impression that mental illness is just cause for NFP cannot serve as a distraction from the problem that mental illnesses affect the ability to consent to marriage. Severe cases of personality or mental disorders fall under canon 1095 and incapacity of consenting.

This one is not specific to mentally ill people as 1095 is, and also talks about inability to marry by excluding some essential element of marriage (i.e. physical illness includes never being able to have and raise children).

“Ability” is a precise word and it does not include all sorts of situations where it would be hard or difficult.

I guess you could say it’s not a positive act of will, but that seems to be open to interpretation because the choice to practice NFP throughout marriage is a positive act of will.

Yes, it is a positive act of will not to have children. It *can *be tricky because the person making that decision may be accepting the possibility that NFP will fail him or her and be ready to receive and educate the offspring that comes from that. *Not *getting a vasectomy further illustrates the point. However, the intent not to have a single child unless a miracle or error happens is problematic.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think using NFP continuously throughout the marriage for a just reason meets the openness to life requirement without which marriage can’t be contracted.

I think it does so when it’s not planned for but results from the circumstances as they arise. I think it’s more complex when NFP is the plan forever.

 

[chevalier]

I think acceptance of children that may be born is a given unless the person falsely believes that NFP is has a true 0% failure rate.

If a person believed NFP to have a true 0% failure rate, then I believe that would be at least extremely close to exclusion if not already there. Otherwise, I believe that while particular cases need to be decided on their own merits, there’s a lot of room for the possibility of exclusion or psychic inability.

As a rule, if the circumstance is of a psychic nature, then I believe it falls under can. 1095 sec. 3. Remember that a person affected by can. 1095 is supposed to be intending everything all right–just not having the knowledge or reason regarding the essential duties of marriage or the ability–for psychic reasons—to assume those duties. So the person may be intending to have children after the illness ceases, sure, but the illness is that psychic circumstance which prevents the ability to assume the duty to have children. And if it’s psychic and precludes ability to assume the duties… then it’s a can. 1095 sec. 3 case. Naturally, if the marriage were valid, it would be a just cause for NFP. This I’m not denying. Can. 1095 is not just about people who are generally prevented from “contracting”, i.e. they can’t assume any major duty at all–it concerns specifically the essential duties of marriage and affects more than the mere act of the promise; it affects where one can or can’t assume the duty. Total clarity of mind and perfect ability to form contracts in a nymphomanic will not prevent the invalidity of marriage because the irresistible sexual compulsion will prevent the person from being faithful—and if the person can’t be faithful, he can’t promise to be (and here the psychic reason affects the performance itself rather than the assumption itself, but the psychic inability to perform results in inability to assume the duty, while the reason stays psychic). Can’t promise for a psychic reason? Can. 1095 sec. means it’s invalid.

As I said earlier, this is the case with all illnesses. You never know whether it will go away or whether a cure will be developed.

But you can’t contract marriages counting on a miracle, either. Impotence too could be miraculously cured and yet that doesn’t prevent the marriage from being invalid.

I agree with this provided there are no just reasons to deny.

The problem is not with the reasons to deny but with the reservation to oneself of the power to keep denying and to be the ultimate decision-maker in the matter. And if the just reasons are expected to continue forever, then we have a problem. A good example would be a person afflicted with a heritable disease that had a very high risk of being passed on. If we viewed it as isolated instances, we could arrive at the conclusion that well, that’d count as a just reason (as in, if it were something present on Wednesday but disappearing by Saturday, for instance). But when the isolated instances of denial for just reasons undefeatably add up to a full and total denial forever without exception unless a miracle happens, then that’s a problem. I would say the use of NFP to limit the number of children wouldn’t cause invalidity, but the use of NFP to avoid any conception at all occurring throughout the marriage, that would be a problem if planned for since the beginning, even with just reasons. And remember that the same reasons which justify the use of NFP may well question the morality of agreeing with the 2% (or whatever) risk of conception. And remember the person does rely on the presumption that well, some children will be born anyway. So there will be some children born anyway with e.g. the heritable disease which justifies the use of NFP? Basically there’s a moral problem with simultaneous use of NFP as a shield against moral responsibility for passing the disease on to a child, i.e. steps were taken not to conceive, and NFP’s failure rate as a shield against the charge of excluding children. In my view, using both said arguments simultaneously without thought is a contradiction, even if it could perhaps be reconciled and come to terms with in some way.

(For the record, mere decision based on non-psychic considerations is not yet a psychic inability of itself (a decision is an act of the will primarily, not a psychic condition). The attitude towards that decision, however, could be a psychic reason. For example unproportional fear of a risk, unwillingness to accept something such as bearing a special needs child etc., ultimately preventing someone from ever finding the courage to conceive or accept conception, those could be psychic reasons in my view.)

 

[chevalier]

Agreed

Great. We’ve just written a novel.

This is the one where we disagree. My understanding is that you think this way because of Can. 1095 and your understanding that being unable to have children throughout the marriage (for “cause of a psychic nature”) invalidates the marriage.

Yes, but with the reservation that nothing occurring after the wedding ever gets to invalidate anything. It’s merely a sign. Thus in my view, a person who never came to be ready to bring offspring to the world most likely never became able to give consent, despite not knowing that he or she was so unable and despite possibly intending everything all right, or perhaps there was that positive act of the will excluding offspring that we need to trace.

I view it this way:

1. John and Jane marry. Jane’s one of the ladies who need to breathe some freedom yet. Five years have passed, she’s still not ready. Psychological examination shows well, yeah, she’s 35 going on 16. Meantime, John has withdrawn his consent, he no longer consents to the marriage with Jane. Marriage invalid. This is very close to pure law. I don’t believe any tribunal would rule it valid.
2. John and Jane marry. Jane’s not one of the ladies who need some freedom etc., she’s one with a real medical unit and there are medical reasons–mental, but medical—why she shouldn’t have children.If after some time, it’s all over and they have children etc., then I don’t believe we had a case of invalidity at any single point. She was able to assume the duties, wasn’t able to come through right away.

BUT, if she forever stays depressed (just an example) to the point she shouldn’t have children, that will mean that from the point of the wedding to the point of death (or trial) she never acquired the psychic ability to have and educate offspring. And that means the marriage was invalid.

I disagree because I don’t think that ever being able to have children is an essential obligation of marriage.

Ability is not an obligation because ability cannot be an obligation. Having and bringing up children may be an obligation, and is. Being prevented merely by infertility does not invalidate marriage. Being prevented by never (from the wedding onward) being in a state which allows the performance of duties of spouse and parents, does. This is legally a defect of consent but it’s very close to an impediment.

I think an essential obligation of marriage is being open to having children which in this case would mean planning to have them should the just reason for not having them go away.

The attitude you describe is a “not unless” one, which is problematic. It’s like, “well, we aren’t able to do what married people are supposed to do but let’s marry just in case we might later become able.” That’s problematic.

And once again, while your argument here correctly deals with intent, it ignores psychic inability totally, as the case which you describe is one of psychic inability.

I also think this “retroactive” invalidation of marriage is a strange way to interpret the law, it either happened when it did or it didn’t. Since neither case 4 nor case 5 knew how things would turn out, those cases should either be both valid or both invalid.

There is no retroactive invalidation but there are signs by which to investigate a person’s state of the mind before and during the wedding. Furthermore, in case of temporary problems not invalidating marriage but permanent ones doing so, the permanence or lack of it naturally only become apparent for certain after the wedding. For example, it may turn out that supposedly temporary impotence was permanent in fact. That makes marriage invalid.

The knowledge how things would turn out later may only affect intent, but not the psychic ability or lack of it.

 

[chevalier]

This is what I have been told by priests and what I have read in Catholic literature.

No, that is your conclusions from what you’ve been told. I don’t believe you’ve been directly told by a number of priests that a continued psychic inability to assume one of the duties of marriage somehow becomes not invalidating if it concerns procreation and it seems to be a just cause for always going on NFP. Basically, whether it would be a just cause for NFP in a valid marriage doesn’t have bearing on the fact whether it is or is not a psychic inability to procreate and educate offspring. The depression you speak about, continuing from the point of wedding on forever, is a forever inability to assume one of the essential duties of marriage for a reason of a psychic nature. Is the person unable to assume the duty to procreate and educate offspring? Yes. Is the reason psychic (depression)? Yes. What does canon 1095 sec. 3 say? “The following are incapable of contracting marriage: those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.” The intent being there doesn’t deal away with the inability to act on that intent.

The supposed distinction that as you say, actually being able to procreate and educate offspring is supposedly not an essential duty of marriage, blurs things because the promise is to accept the offspring as it comes and progeny (offspring) is one of the three essential goods of marriage defined by St. Augustine (fides, sacramentum, proles, i.e. faithfulness, progeny, indissolubility). When you promise something, you don’t promise to be able to do it. It’s not about that. It’s about doing it. Otherwise we would always be able to say, well, we didn’t promise to be able to do X.

In your example with depression, the duty of procreation and education of offspring can’t be assumed because of depression (that supposedly would make children “too much to handle”, notwithstanding they could be brought up by the husband as the primary parent). The woman in your example therefore cannot take on herself the duty of procreation and education of offspring and the reason for such is psychic. That is what invalidates the marriage under can. 1095 sec. 3.

When I say a shorter span that ended at some point wouldn’t necessarily be a sign of an invalidating defect, this is because you can assume duties which you can’t perform just now but which you can perform normally, normally being the rest of your life for which you are binding yourself. But when the “can’t right now” has lasted the whole life, it means it wasn’t a “right now”, it was an “ever”. It means the person never was able. I don’t know if it’s theoretically possible that some such circumstances could form that the marriage would be valid (a stream of independent instances of depression, each of them temporary–perhaps but not necessarily, as it can mean the person always had such a state of mental health that assumption of the essential duties of marriage was impossible).

And it’s different from e.g. never getting out of the worst poverty where it would indeed be impossible to feed and clothe a child (unless the parties intended to stay so poor and keep using NFP).

Please remember I’m not talking about moral responsibility here. The parties who hoped the illness would cease and used NFP according to that belief, were not morally culpable. But this doesn’t mean the marriage was valid (even if we discover the invalidity when they’re no longer with us, in which case the case will not normally go to the tribunal, which means the marriage will benefit from presumption of validity forever, so we aren’t really supposed to be investigating real situations with real people thus affected). The validity of marriage does not depend on the holiness of the parties. It doesn’t mean the parties couldn’t have been paragons of spousal support and fidelity. But that they were so does not make the marriage more valid in spite of a defect of consent consisting in never assuming (where never precludes convalidation) one of the essential duties of marriage, which is procreation and education of offspring.

After New Year, I’ll try to look up some cases from tribunals to illustrate my point with.

 

[chevalier]

Well, anyway, in order to make the case that marriage is valid in such cases, you’d need to show that the person who is unable to assume the duty to have children for psychic reasons somehow manages not to fall under can. 1095 sec. 3, but this can’t be done. So you can only try to show that the person we’re talking about is able to assume the duties. Here, firstly, I can’t see how one can assume duties one’s never in a position to perform, secondly, if one theoretically assumed the duties (accepted that he/she has the duty) then one can question the assumption if performance was never intended or never came to be intended (which does cast light on the assumption). Deal away with some of the above and you’ve made your case.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think there may be one case where continued psycic ability not to be able to raise children could still result in valid marriage and that is the case where the ability was there at time of consent but then shows up shortly after here is an example:

Jane and Joe marry. On the way to the reception they are in a car accident. Joe suffers head trauma which gives him Traumatic Brain Injury. This causes mood swings and violent bursts. Bang valid marriage. Am I right?

Survey says???

 

[chevalier]

I think there may be one case where continued psycic ability not to be able to raise children could still result in valid marriage and that is the case where the ability was there at time of consent but then shows up shortly after here is an example:

Jane and Joe marry. On the way to the reception they are in a car accident. Joe suffers head trauma which gives him Traumatic Brain Injury. This causes mood swings and violent bursts. Bang valid marriage. Am I right?

Survey says???

Fully valid marriage because the accident happened after the wedding. The marriage is rock-valid. It can be *dissolved *before consummation and this would be a good enough to dissolve that marriage (dispensation from marriage contracted but not consummated, properly so called), but the validity is unmovable. Only factors before or during the time of the exchange of vows matter. The rest is but evidence (e.g. pregnancy test results that someone was pregnant, DNA test results that someone was related to someone else, notorious compulsive cheating that someone was incapable of being faithful or excluded faith etc.). Thus in the example with never–from wedding until death–ever becoming able to become a parent, IMHO there’s a whole lot of evidence that we’re dealing with a permanent psychological issue predating the wedding, which invalidates… or an exclusion. I’d say psychic inability should be more likely with people who have mental or personality issues but are all right on the point of intent etc., while exclusion would be more likely in the case of “rebels”.

 

[cecilia97]

(c) CountrySinger’s, used without permission:

Bring 'em on.

Ha ha haaa! I’m single by choice, but dsome contributing factors would be:

I’m too stubborn
I’m too independant
I want to get advanced degrees and it scares men
My wit is too straightforward and too biting
Any potential partner must dance
I’m turned off by materialism
I don’t like to stroke people’s egos
I don’t like to wear uncomfortable clothes anymore
I don’t put out
I’m just the right amount of religious
I refuse to live anywhere but the Houston metro area ever again
And I laugh really loudly in public, embarrassing people of lesser self-esteem

And, as we say in the sticks, them are just the shakes…tough!

 

[chevalier]

This here discussion’s going slightly awkward is perhaps the result of a wrong approach at the initial stage, anyway. We started from exclusion (also known as simulation, which may sometimes be misleading) and arrived at the psychic inability, causing some tensions.

Basically, exclusion is a matter of can. 1101 §2. A person excluding one of the essential elements of properties of marriage, “contracts invalidly”. When this is called simulation of consent, some negative moral judgement is implied.

From this we moved to canon 1095, esp. sec. 3 of it, that is: “The following are incapable of contracting marriage: those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature,” which logically reads that if a person is unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage and the cause (not reason) is of a psychic nature, then the marriage is invalid. This shouldn’t be read as any sort of moral judgement or rejection or stigmatisation. By virtue of their condition, some people are simply unable to undertake certain obligations and inability to undertake obligations required by marriage results in being unable to undertake the total obligation, which is marriage. Once again, this is not a negative judgement, especially not a moral one, and it is independent from the parties’ holiness (yes, holy people could fall thereunder too).

Exclusion must be taken separately from inability because it’s two different things. Exclusion relies on a, “positive act of will,” whereas in psychic conditions there is typically no such positive act of will (or we’ woul have two grounds of nullity anyway), but there is an inability that may or may not come with lack of willingness. It may manifest itself in a lack of willingness ever to do some duty of marriage, but it may also manifest itself in not being able to do that despite earnest desire and maybe even earnest efforts. In line with the Papal teaching, it must be noted, that what invalidates is incapacity, not just difficulty.

In the case which we have been discussing, i.e. someone never getting around to actually planning to conceive, we have two separate levels of examining the case: 1) the intent, 2) the ability (capacity). On the first level marriage would be invalid if there had been an intent not to have children or at least some reservation that one will be able to claim the right never to have children (an act excluding the obligation itself). On the second level, marriage would be invalid if i) at least one of the persons were unable to assume essential duties of marriage, ii) such an inability would result from psychic causes.

Examples unrelated to children would be inability to contribute at all to the stronghold (monetary provision, housekeeping…), inability to stay faithful (e.g. by a person would theoretically be in the state of mind to make up his mind about fidelity to one person for the rest of his life* but *his nymphomania or some other sexual compulsion prevents him from being *able *to be faithful), perhaps there might also be some disorder preventing a person from being able to stay with one partner throughout the whole life by compelling him to switch partners from time to time).

In case of decision always to be on NFP, we *could *but not necessarily *would *have a problem with possible exclusion, depending on the exact circumstances. This does not really have to do with the justifiability of NFP in the case as with the intent towards its permanence.

In case of depression making one unable to procreate or educate offspring (which I would take to be something extreme, not just feeling bad about it or anxious or unable to devote a decent amount of time to the children where the other parent could fill in–in other words something total and not just an imperfection, even a big one), that *could *rule out problems with intent, but it would signify *likely *problems with psychic ability to assume the duties. If you claim that you must use NFP because you’re unable to have children at the moment, you can’t claim that you’re able, after all, when it comes to examining the psychic ability. If the condition is not permanent, it can be argued that despite temporarily not being able to perform the duties, you are in a position to assume them. You are not in a position to assume them if your condition is permanent.

Yes, can see the wisdom of the argument that being depressed and for the reason of that illness, just like any illness, being unable to deal with having children, is supposedly different from the case in which the depression would instill a fear of having children, a revulsion against it, or a state comparable to immaturity, which is a *clearer *can. 1095 case (and one that just can’t be debated in my view because there’s simply no good argument there). However, that depression, while truly being an illness, does result in inability to assume the duties and does indeed constitute a psychic cause. Thus it falls under can. 1095 sec. 3.

 

[chevalier]

Now, if the people involved expect that that depression or other psychic condition will continue permanently, then this aspect becomes much clearer than in the case in which they always thought it would end some time but it never did. If they intend to use it as a reason to stay on NFP but keep having sex, knowing this will likely mean NFP forever, then I’d see room for a problem with intent there in addition to problem with inability (someone having a psychic condition expected to be permanent fits squarely under can. 1095 sec. 3). (I will also question the reasons for NFP on these grounds if the other spouse can manage being a primary parent or some other family can help, but this is besides the point except maybe that citing poor reasons for NFP may signify having formed intent of exclusion or being unable to assume the duties for psychic reasons (psychic reasons here consisting in fears, but in other cases they could consist in revulsion, constant putting off, sticking with the freedom of childlessness for reasons other than mere sinful selfishness and so on).

And neither does one marry a person not currently intending to stay faithful forever and have children but hoping said person would later change his mind, or with the hope that diagnosed permanent impotence will somehow go.

 

[flyingfish]

Yes, but with the reservation that nothing occurring after the wedding ever gets to invalidate anything. It’s merely a sign. Thus in my view, a person who never came to be ready to bring offspring to the world most likely never became able to give consent, despite not knowing that he or she was so unable and despite possibly intending everything all right, or perhaps there was that positive act of the will excluding offspring that we need to trace.

I understand this way of interpreting it, but in the example you give the situation start out as being identical. Both people start off being unable to have children for “causes of a psychic nature”, and both realize that it may well be permanent.

One ends up recovering and the other does not. I guess you would say that this is evidence that the situations were not in fact identical and so the marriage of one was valid and of the other was not.

I don’t agree with this though, take for instance the case where a successful treatment is developed for one person and not the other. Why should it make one marriage valid and the other not?

Ability is not an obligation because ability cannot be an obligation. Having and bringing up children may be an obligation, and is.

Why do you say that it is, all the quotes you provided talk about the realization that marriage is ordered to children and openness to life. Not once did I see that actually having and bringing up children is essential obligation of marriage.

I mean, if it were so, you’d have to make all kinds of weird arguments for why infertile and post-menopausal couples can marry, since they clearly could never have and bring up children.

But I guess you’d say that it doesn’t matter because apparently being unable to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage for physical reasons is a-okay but for “psychic reasons” invalidates the marriage.

To me this makes absolutely no sense, and makes me wonder if there are other rules besides 1095 which would make it invalid for anyone who is unable to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage regardless of whether the reason is “psychic” or physical or financial or whatever to contract a valid marriage.

---

I think that if you want to convince me that your interpretation of the 1095 is correct, you have to show me the list of the “essential obligations of marriage” and that actually having and bringing up children is on that list.

 

[HeWillProvide]

A funny thing Dr. Laura would tell those men who feel they must produce their own children (instead of adopting), “Um, hate to burst your ego-bubble, but your DNA isn’t all that great, you know - it’s not as if you have some supergreat genetic material - if you can’t make your own kids, adopt!” Funny, but true.

 

[Salonika]

I’m single by choice because I have never had the desire to fully share my life physically or psychologically with anyone.

Once when asked why I had never married I made the quip “I’ve never met a man who would add more to my life than he would take away” and as I said it I realised it was true. Please note that this doesn’t mean I do not consider there would be plusses in being married but for me they would be cancelled out by the disadvantages.

Specifically:

I enjoy having people to stay or to stay with people for a three days maximum - then I need my space physically and mentally

I like to make my own decisions and do things when I want to eg the washing at 2am

I consider that I would have difficulty getting the correct degree of maintaining my individuality and becoming part of pair

I never wanted to have children of my own (and I like other people’s in small doses only)

I find it difficult to multi-task (in quizzes I come out with a male brain)

I LIKE BEING INDEPENDENT

I admire couples who have successful and fulfiling marriages, especially those with children. It’s just was not for me.

 

[flyingfish]

So I have had more time to research this some (re. Chevalier) and frankly I am extremely surprised that I am unable to find an official list of the essential obligations of marriage referenced in Canon 1095.

Frankly I find this to be shocking, since how are priests supposed to determine if people discerning marriage are able to marry…

Maybe I am just very bad at looking, but I have been looking through Title VII here vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM (the Canon Law section on marriage related business).

In looking through the Catechism’s section on Marriage, this is all I am able to find: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#V

It talks about openness to fertility, but nothing that says that actually having and raising children is an essential obligation of marriage.

Are essential obligations of marriage going to be defined differently by different Catholics then?

(That said, even if having and raising children were an essential obligation of marriage, it would make absolutely no sense to me then for infertile couples to be able to marry. If you can’t fufill the essential obligations of marriage for whatever reason, you should not be able to validly marry.)

 

[flyingfish]

Additional: I found something interesting, I don’t know if this is true since it seems to be just the opinion of an EWTN contributor and has no sources, but apparently before not producing a male heir invalidated a marriage.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm

Previously the Church accepted future conditions on consent (e.g. a male heir), but under the new Code invalidates such conditions by positive law.

So is Canon Law then arbitrary and open to change?

 

[DL82]

I guess in my case it’s:

Was engaged, she broke it off, still haven’t quite got over it.
Thought I was called to be a monk for a while, but that was just out of desire to run away and punish myself.
I’m shy and have low self-esteem.
I’m a graduate student.

 

[DL82]

I hadn’t read all the posts that got into canon law about infertility. As far as I was aware, impotence is an impediment to marriage, infertility is not. I suppose it gets complicated where someone could conceive but carrying the baby would kill them, because then you’re marrying in the knowledge that you never want the relationship to be fruitful. That needs someone more knowledgeable than I.

More importantly though, it’s worth pointing out that a marriage is considered valid until somebody challenges its validity at an annulment tribunal. Josephite marriages, for example, where spouses are capable of sex but choose to remain celebate within marriage, are licit, but if either spouse were to ask for an annulment it would be granted on the grounds that the marriage hadn’t been consummated. That doesn’t make the marriage null in the beginning, otherwise all marriages would be invalid during the period between the Mass and the wedding night .

 

[chevalier]

I understand this way of interpreting it, but in the example you give the situation start out as being identical. Both people start off being unable to have children for “causes of a psychic nature”, and both realize that it may well be permanent.

I have issues with the bolded sentence and what you describe is a canon 1095 sec. 3 case. Let me remind you you’re talking about a case of depression supposedly so severe that one shouldn’t have children at that point. That’s a *huge *psychic disturbance and the inability to assume the essential duties of marriage is more total, it is not just the children. Let me quote again from that EWTN article (which refuses to be wrapped in proper quotations):

3. Finally, there can be a defect due to the inability to actually assume the essential obligations of marriage. A person may have sufficient reason, even sufficient discretion, but have a psychic condition that incapacitates them for fulfilling marriage’s essential obligations (the conjugal act, the community of life and love, providing mutual help, and procreating and educating children). As noted by Pope John Paul II regarding the lack of reason, it must be an incapacity not just a difficulty, and it must be present at the time of exchanging consent. Examples of such conditions are psychosexual disorders and personality disorders./quote]

Regarding the time-frames, so long as a defect of consent lasts, convalidation is not possible. Convalidation is, however, possible when the defect ceases (such as with impediments, basically). When the psychic inability is gone, the marriage can be convalidated, meaning it wasn’t validly contracted but it was able to be convalidated later.

The other case I discussed, that is, a short case of a psychic disturbance, relied basically on the fact that momentarily not being able to fulfil the duties for a reason of psychic nature could avoid constituting incapacity in a more total sense and avoid preventing the person from assuming the duties.

This also clearly shows that a person who expects always to be in a psychic condition preventing the fulfilment of essential obligations looks at never being able to marry validly and thus shouldn’t marry at all.

One ends up recovering and the other does not. I guess you would say that this is evidence that the situations were not in fact identical and so the marriage of one was valid and of the other was not.

See above.

I don’t agree with this though, take for instance the case where a successful treatment is developed for one person and not the other. Why should it make one marriage valid and the other not?

Why should marriage be valid if an impotent person is cured but not when he’s not? Successful treatment marks the end of the psychic cause (enabling convalidation if necessary) and proves it wasn’t a permanent insurmountable case, so the claim that someone was able to undertake the commitment gains more credit.

Why do you say that it is, all the quotes you provided talk about the realization that marriage is ordered to children and openness to life. Not once did I see that actually having and bringing up children is essential obligation of marriage

.

That’s a strange logic you’re trying to follow there. Having and bringing up children *is *an essential obligation of marriage, which does not mean that a marriage which never produced any children is invalid, but it does mean that a psychic inability (as opposed to physical infertility) to assume the duties, i.e. to give consent to the marriage resulting in children, invalidates.

I mean, if it were so, you’d have to make all kinds of weird arguments for why infertile and post-menopausal couples can marry, since they clearly could never have and bring up children.

Hundreds of pages have been written about that (including e.g. this short article). The couple may remain open to life despite infertility, including being after menopause and there is no positive act of will excluding offspring (if there managed to be one, it would invalidate), as the infertile person does not intend to be infertile despite being so already. A decision always to be on NFP to avoid pregnancy from day one to day last is a different thing from that, and psychic inability to assume the duty to procreate and educate offspring (or stay faithful, or participate in a communion of whole life), invalidates because it prevents consent.

 

[chevalier]

But I guess you’d say that it doesn’t matter because apparently being unable to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage for physical reasons is a-okay but for “psychic reasons” invalidates the marriage.

Depends. Permanent impotence (impossibility to have intercourse) invalidates. Infertility of itself does not. Here inability for physical reasons ends. The rest is not physical inability but a decision based on pros and cons, such as heritable diseases, risk of death upon pregnancy and so on. Reasons against do not translate into inability.

To me this makes absolutely no sense, and makes me wonder if there are other rules besides 1095 which would make it invalid for anyone who is unable to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage regardless of whether the reason is “psychic” or physical or financial or whatever to contract a valid marriage.

If the reason is psychic, can. 1095 sec. 3 is clear and there’s no going around it. Financial matters are a different cup of tea. Physical inabilities I’ve already told you about, as well NFP *decisions *related to physical diseases (which are not physical inabilities). Yes, I see you object because you believe it would be somehow cruel to consider a marriage invalid if one or both of the spouses unable for psychic reasons to assume procreation, but fact stands they are.

I think that if you want to convince me that your interpretation of the 1095 is correct, you have to show me the list of the “essential obligations of marriage” and that actually having and bringing up children is on that list.

Think we’ve dealt with that part. Anyway, once again, I’ve never claimed that actually having and bringing up children is an essential duty. The duty is to accept and bring up the offspring as it comes. But removing that duty from marriage invalidates. Being unable to assume that duty for psychic reasons invalidates. Yes, in specific cases we’re looking at a lot of difficulty determining whether parties believed there was a just cause for NFP all the time as a matter of assessment or, contrary, the constant decision nto to have children was a matter of psychic inability. However, when we’re looking at e.g. a case of mental illness present from day one and preventing someone from assuming the duties of parenthood, there’s no going around the fact that we’re dealing with inability to assume the duties and the cause is psychic. The use of NFP may signify some measure of openness, but why that could perhaps solve the problem of intent, it doesn’t deal away with psychic inability to be a parent.

 

[chevalier]

More importantly though, it’s worth pointing out that a marriage is considered valid until somebody challenges its validity at an annulment tribunal. Josephite marriages, for example, where spouses are capable of sex but choose to remain celebate within marriage, are licit, but if either spouse were to ask for an annulment it would be granted on the grounds that the marriage hadn’t been consummated. That doesn’t make the marriage null in the beginning, otherwise all marriages would be invalid during the period between the Mass and the wedding night .

Actually, being considered valid is the matter of law, not reality, and it’s a presumption. We treat marriages as valid until proven otherwise, but this doesn’t mean the reality definitely is that they’re valid.

Josephite marriages are valid when they include the exchange of right to marital intercourse, even if that right is intended never to be exercised, the result being that if the one spouse should later change his mind, the other would be obliged to act accordingly (you’ve got to look up the rules for vows of continence in marriage for the specifics). This exchange having taken place, those marriages are valid and they can’t be declared invalid, but if they are unconsummated, they can be dissolved. Only the Pope has this authority. In cases of doubtful validity of unconsummated marriages, this route is still preferred because the dissolution (dispensation) is more certain and the nullity declaration is less certain.

A valid marriage can’t become or be made invalid for any reason by any power. An attempt to declare a valid marriage invalid would be unsuccessful and would lead to objective bigamy.